There is one country in the Crusader Kings II, to which none other can compare. The spectacle of art, last true state of Romans, truly a living legacy. The empire is however troubled. By problems from outside, from inside. Some are inherited from the Roman system (corrupcy), some have arisen newly (muslims). What will you do? Will you try to help the one and only Roman empire survive the threats or even follow the succeses of original Restauratio Imperii or will you watch the painful decay of imperial city, even giving the final blow yourself?

___________________Enough of atmospheric byzantophile rant I suppose. My Slavic thread became too small for me, since I already several times discussed Byz things in there. The uniqueness of the empire is hardly represented in CK2. Some mods tried to give more flavours (Imperium Graecorum), but making strategoi agnatic open ruins all fun. Therefore do you, forumites, have any ideas for how the Imperial system of provinces could be represented? Perhaps some adaptation of republic system could work. Same way most of change of emperors were not big uprisings with fractioned empire in million of dutchies, but palace coups.

Then, some of Legacy of Rome events are quite... stupid. Moving capital to Rome is something I doubt the emperor would do (considering the exarchate of Ravenna). Perhaps renaming Constanople to Nova Roma would serve better. Lets also not forget in early startdate senate was still active. What if Basileos I. as player didn't restrict it's power?

Speaking of LoR, the reestablishment of empire is also not working as intended. I think that should mean immediate war with HRE. If Byz win, HRE as claimant Roman empire is dissolved. Thoughts?

I think the true succesor to Rome deserves to be played differently. I of course understand devs are not wizards and I don't expect DLC-sized content, but considering the great inovations already done..

I think it also would be great if some work would be done (this is something that I can research too, will post list in HRE thread soon) to represent latin names in the recaptured teritories. De-jure map should change accordingly, or make some sort of quick-drift of reconquered territories.

I would like to elaborate more on things I couldn't in the Slav thread. The Slavs (Sklavenoi) inside the Empire are done in the respective thread. I also wrote something about Crimea and Byzantine Georgia. As I wrote yesterday though, I didn't quite mention Crimean Goths, which come in next post.

The Senate, the Synkleton of Constantinople, was already in the years of Theodosius and Justinian, just an honorary city hall of Constantinople. It didn't even have the prestige of the Roman Senate because it was created ex profeso by Constantine, and thus it wasn't very old or venerable. It was a kind of gentlement's club, at most. At the least, it was just a place to get titles from, to reward bureaucrats and generals.

Documentation show the Senate taking action against some Emperors, like Herakleonas, and doing important stuff, like public works or funding imperial war, but all of this was done, not because the Senate was powerful, but because the people in it were so. The Senate as an institution was only useful sometimes, like when the Senate deposed Phokas, because it was supposed to be able to do it, like the old Roman Senate; but it wouldn't have been possible if the Senate wasn't full of powerful bureaucrats and important landowners with the means to put the Emperor at check.

After the Fourth Crusade, the Senate vanished. The crusaders didn't bother to create their version of it and none of the Byzantine successor states in Epirus, Nikaia or Trebizonde did recreate it.

They will be already orthodox in the era and their lieges probably greek. While their numbers might not have been big and especially after the mongol conquest the area was one big mess of Greeks, Crimean Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Kypchaks and other nations, in both of the main startdates I think they are distinctive enough for including.

I've tried some name reconstructions, based on the gothic wikipedia and some books. Since their own language and even origin is subject of discussion, it is the universal Goth names.Male: Þiudareiks, Þiudahaþus, Hroþareiks, Kinþila, Wulfila, Widugauja, Aþawulfs, Badwila, Gaizalaiks, Iuþareiks, Þaurismoþs, Kinþaswinþs, Liubageis, Sigifriþus, Harjawulfs, Friþugairns, Alareiks, Aþawulfs, more are possible to findFemale: Mahtiswinþa, Amalaswinþa, Gaujaswinþa, Þiudananþa, Aþawulfa, Brunihildi, Marþa, Hroþaswinþa, Liudibairga, Amalabairga, Greimahildi, Ibragunþi

Dynasties are a big unknown, but perhaps it could be the name of first dynasty member plus -i on the end, in the manner of "Amal"=>Amali dynasty (very much like muslims ingame), or "af" as of/from and the place.

I for one think that the court of Byzantine empire would welcome some attention (not that the same couldn't be said to muslims or others though), just look at the number of titles!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_aristocracy_and_bureaucracyAll these kinds of eunuchs, eparchs, guards and such could fill the court. Having special "imperial plots" for overthrows or limitation of power.

Perhaps there could be some adaptation of republic system. Most important families would have their palace in the City. Important doukes or strategoi could plot to get palace instead of some old family. When some would get enough support, they could try for a palace coup. Depending on emperor's abilities it would succed or fail. If failed, it would be either good ol'faction war, or imprisoment, blinding, etc.

Same sort of system could be in every thema or duchy, since we can't quite have agnatic open, since that would start discontinuity of the dynasties. Instead rather something like with the imperial system, or some sort of adapted and renamed tanistry?

In short:Byzantium not being feudal, is quite a challenge to make at least somewhat correctly.

I for one think that the court of Byzantine empire would welcome some attention (not that the same couldn't be said to muslims or others though), just look at the number of titles!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_aristocracy_and_bureaucracyAll these kinds of eunuchs, eparchs, guards and such could fill the court. Having special "imperial plots" for overthrows or limitation of power.

Perhaps there could be some adaptation of republic system. Most important families would have their palace in the City. Important doukes or strategoi could plot to get palace instead of some old family. When some would get enough support, they could try for a palace coup. Depending on emperor's abilities it would succed or fail. If failed, it would be either good ol'faction war, or imprisoment, blinding, etc.

Same sort of system could be in every thema or duchy, since we can't quite have agnatic open, since that would start discontinuity of the dynasties. Instead rather something like with the imperial system, or some sort of adapted and renamed tanistry?

In short:Byzantium not being feudal, is quite a challenge to make at least somewhat correctly.

It wasn't feudal, but it was... sort of.

The Empire was big and old. The concept, the idea of the Empire was embrodied in everyone's mind, inside or outside. Thus, even when Constantinople considered that, say, Theodosia was lost, its inhabitants might very well still think they're in the Empire. Because, like all other Roman citizens, they're the Empire too.

So, for some periods of its history, the Empire was a fiction maintained by the bureaucrats in Constantinople. For instance, during the Doukas dynasty, or after the Fourth Crusade, or even at much more specific situations. The study of the Byzantine state is so complex and its nature is so deeply sewed into the collective psychology that it raises questions like "what is an empire?", "what is a State?", "when is a State a continuous one?" or "do people with a common idea and identity constitute a State?"

Feudal? No, not in the Western sense, but for some periods, the Empire was a huge city surrounded by warlords that were, or were not, loyal to the city. For some others, it was a well greased machine that could muster the biggest army in Europe (the only professional army left). Sometimes it was just a collections of polities that were at odds at each other.

One of the thesis presented in the book "Byzantium: profiles of an empire" by Antonio Bravo (i don't know if it's originally by its author) is that the Empire was undergoing incredible stress and turmoil because of a secular conflict between the capital and the provinces. This problem was a severe threat to the stability of the Empire, and put the bureaucracy and courtly aristocracy against the provincial landowners and the military nobility. If not for the Fourth Crusade, that ripped the capital out of the equation, the Empire might have just shredded apart in several pieces. When Michael Palaiologos retook Constantinople, the conflict was no more, but the City would never again be what it had been.

Thank you for the spiritual insight. In my previous post I was taking it purely from game terms, speculating how even a little of what you wrote could be achieved, keeping in mind CK2 as a game where sadly a lot has to be sacrified in terms of accuracy. Which reminds me of the way for example vassalage is handled. In native game there is no single reason to go for absolute crown authority because even if player manages to calm all the vassals, the profits of said authority are way too low.

Ever since our rough crusading forefathers first saw Constantinople and met, to their contemptuous disgust, a society where everyone read and wrote, ate food with forks and preferred diplomacy to war, it has been fashionable to pass the Byzantines by with scorn and to use their name as synonymous with decadence.

There is something hardly anyone notices but is blatantly wrong. Orthodox bishop clothing! First, all need to be bearded without any exceptions.

As listed Cardinal Humbert in 1054:

...and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receivein communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice(institutio) of the Roman Church....While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair.

As stated on paradox forums,orthodox bishops in this game have a Bishops Crown. This is completely incorrect, as this crown was NOT used until after the fall of Constantinople. Even more so, that crown is never used outside performing the liturgy, so it makes no sense for it to be shown on the portrait anyway.

They should wear mantles instead (Mandyas).

There already were some attempts on fixing, like one by Cracktoothgrin, who clothed the bishop in cassock.

Cesar wrote:So, for some periods of its history, the Empire was a fiction maintained by the bureaucrats in Constantinople. For instance, during the Doukas dynasty, or after the Fourth Crusade, or even at much more specific situations. The study of the Byzantine state is so complex and its nature is so deeply sewed into the collective psychology that it raises questions like "what is an empire?", "what is a State?", "when is a State a continuous one?" or "do people with a common idea and identity constitute a State?"

not to dismiss the Greek influence here with the loss of territories in Asia Byzantium somewhat cohered.

Yep that would be awesome! I think the whole faction system needs to be redone, same with for example muslim decadence (instead of landed or not landed dynasty members based on good and bad traits?), as I would definitely love court politics, harem intrigues etc.

While some mods like CK+ changed factions, it was still more of clone of native CK2. What is needed is factions of unlanded people and baron-level people.

Radetzky wrote:Yep that would be awesome! I think the whole faction system needs to be redone, same with for example muslim decadence (instead of landed or not landed dynasty members based on good and bad traits?), as I would definitely love court politics, harem intrigues etc.

While some mods like CK+ changed factions, it was still more of clone of native CK2. What is needed is factions of unlanded people and baron-level people.

Maybe the Decadence could be turned into "Hybris" for the Byzantines? The highter the hybris, que more likely the Emperor and your own neighbours might want to strike you down. Just a raw idea.

Sounds cool César! Hybris might be a good balance for some boosts Rhomanoi get (or are here mentioned as ideas).

One of these and a main principle regarding the Byz factions should be that Greek orthodox lords should never ever strike for independence, no matter how they loves or hates the liege. that's how I understood the philosophy of the Empire.

Regarding how would the court factions work without "faction power" of levies: They would have availible faction plots which would have power based on abilities of faction members (martial for military coups, intrigue for palace coups, etc.)

I will probably open new, muslim topic, since the decadence talk is inappropiate here, if you wouldn't mind. The way decadence works in native CK2 makes many people (in short almost everyone) unhappy.

Iago in his faction proposals made one remark I didn't think of. Demes! While they might not have been as influential and as violent, they were still important part of society. Ingame, perhaps, all young men except for clergy (probably emperor's family neither)from like adulthood to 30-40, would have the trait that if he belongs to Vénetoi or Prásinoi, which would create some minor opinion differences, and some events.

Talking of hyppodrome, there are more things related as wiki reveals:

There continued to be burnings and mutilations of humans who committed crimes or were enemies of the state in the hippodrome throughout the Byzantine Empire, as well as victory celebrations and imperial coronations.

I'll continue my thoughts regarding LoR restore the Empire quest, by quoting myself: " the reestablishment of empire is also not working as intended. I think that should mean immediate war with HRE. If Byz win, HRE as claimant Roman empire is dissolved". That brought to mind following question:

How should the de-jure empire map look then? In my personal opinion, only HRE and Bysantium should be de-jure empires on the map, rest titular (will post some proposals in slav thread). HRE should after it's final defeat vanish from map, being replaced by single entity of Roman empire? Should there be some sacrifications be done (eg. whole Hungary instead of just Pannonia and Dacia, well if Magyars succed with their conquest, Taurica,..) in terms of de-jure map? How should be handled the plausible conquests, like Hibernia or Caledonia? Should there be penalties for territory outside these "plausible conquests? Lots of questions, but the Roman empire deserves to be not dull.

Personally I think there should be only 3 empires: Eastern Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire (the HRE should be titular) and Persian Empire. In fact I always edit out all those science fiction empires from the landed titles file. I've redrawn all the kingdom and duchy borders to match the Rhine/Danube borders of the old Empire.

i don´t know how a persian realm would be called empire without roots in the roman empire.they would call themselves otherwise but a multi kingdom administration is similar to the empires,and the rules i think must be similar.

Persian would probably work fine as titular in my opinion, as would probably Francia (for players-wanna-be Charlemagne). What do you think of those kingdom-empires, such as especially Bulgaria and also Serbia? Possibly titular empires when meeting certain criteria?

HRE as titular is lovely too, only thing I fear is it won't survive long. Especially if my idea of Bavarian, Saxon, Swabian,... culture split was included.

I tried to find something about urbanism of Byzantium, without much success, though I rediscovered this lovely website:http://www.byzantium1200.com/index.htmlI think César is much more aknowledged for the buildings.

Could we perhaps have some anglo-saxon and later (if invasion succeds of course) english Varangians too for the mix, if they were to be physically on the court of the captain (court politics again)?

Radetzky wrote:That's fantastic Grallon, thank you very much!Persian would probably work fine as titular in my opinion, as would probably Francia (for players-wanna-be Charlemagne). What do you think of those kingdom-empires, such as especially Bulgaria and also Serbia? Possibly titular empires when meeting certain criteria?

You realize I expressed only my opinion. I don't speak for the mod team on this and our cartographer has been absent for some time. What I modded was for my own personnal use. When summer is over and everyone is back you'll be able to advocate this with the others. As for your question, like I said elsewhere, I dislike S-F empires. However since we're limited by how the 'de jure' mechanics function... Perhaps decreasing the drift period where a titular title becomes 'de jure' from 100 to 75 or even 50 years - and giving a larger opinion bonus when holding this or that titular title would help keep it intact for long enough to transition from one state to the other.

Last edited by Grallonsphere on Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Thank you Grallon for your kind reply! I agree with your opinion and value it greatly. I hope I didn't cause any misunderstanding with my crappy beer czenglish, because that's the last I would want. I am only throwing ideas, of which many are purely optional. Some others, like some of ToG stuff, totally messed by PI, definitely needs a change though. The execution can varry.

Decreasing drift period might lead to complications for Byzantines->Roman players, who would have to hurry so that HRE doesn't destroy the Roman borders. The opinion bonus might be the best solution.

Anyway, tried to play as Ottomans, starting as ol'Osman in 1321. To my utter surprise, when I usurped Byz (I expected Ottoman empire), I became Khagan and now I even get Byzantine events!

Anyone else been thinking that the settlements depictions are very plain? There is same picture type from scotland to constantinople! I therefore took things in my hands , as an inspiration (!) for anyone who is artist, unlike me. Depicted, Byz church, castle, armenian/georgian church, and the first two after being islamized.

Anyone thought of actual 4th (well it could be any other number ingame) crusade event serie, since there is no possibility for it to occur?

First would be the massacre of latins, which would happen at any time of palace coup, if there was republic trade site in the City, perhaps restricted to the era after 1150.

During next crusade there could be some sort of technic similiar to adventure conquest/prepared invasion. Just some of the crusaders would go into the targeted land, while the mass would go raid the Byzantine lands. Especially inclided to it should be the latin culture group rulers. Depending on the strength of the empire, if crusaders succeded, Latin empire would form and Byz splinter (?) into succesor state. If failed, big reparations would be had.